At 02:53 PM 5/17/00 -0500, you wrote:
> Our textbook adoption committe considered Psychology in Action, by Karen
>Huffman, Mark Vernoy, and Judith Vernoy (published 2000, John Wiley). I read
>three chapters, and I identified seven or eight areas in which I thought the
>scholarship was poor. I presented these areas to the committee, and they agreed
>with me. We did not adopt the book.
>
> The area that prompted the most discussion was the topic of ESP.
As it turns out, a colleague and I are in the process of preparing a paper
which represents a follow-up of an earlier review (1991) of coverage of
parapsychology in introductory textbooks published in the 1980s. The current
review includes intro. texbooks published in the 1990s and it includes the
Huffman, et al's, (1997) text. Their 1997 section on ESP is nearly identical,
or identical, to the 2000 edition.
Like many psychologists, including many members of TIPS, Dave Kerby believes
that the evidence for ESP is not indicative of any extrasensory effect. Dave
is also concerned with what appears to be subtle favoritism toward Rhine and
his research in Huffman, et al's text. I agree that citing Rhine and not his
critics might be undesirable. Certainly, the absence of the Hansel (1980)
reference from the index represents at least an oversight. But, I think that,
in spite of any favoritism toward Rhine, even if subtle, may be readily
forgiven as this section clearly (in my view) shows that the authors present a
fairly 'standard' skeptical presentation with respect to ESP. Consider this:
Huffman, et al's text provides approximately 2 and a half pages of coverage of
ESP. Of these, approximately one quarter of a page is devoted to introducing
the section of ESP with definitions (e.g., telepathy, precognition). Another
half a page is devoted to 'ESP research' and nearly one and three quarter pages
are devoted to why people tend to believe in ESP (e.g., media exposure,
personal motivation) and to problems with such beliefs (e.g., fallacy of
positive instances, failure to use critical thinking). In my view, the
overall impression that I got from reading the section is that, 1) there are
problems with the evidence for ESP and that, 2) One should be skeptical and
question such personal beliefs. In fact, the title of the entire section on
ESP provides an unambigious clue as to the authors' conclusion of the evidence:
"Extrasensory Perception: Strange But Not True".
On the other hand, if there is ONE serious problem with the presentation of
this topic in this textbook is that, under 'ESP Research' the authors'
description of such research is confined to Rhine's work with Zener cards; an
area of research that is at least 30 to 70 years old! No mention is made of
newer methodologies, such as the use of noise-based random event generators or
the ganzfeld technique. Such neglect gives the reader the impression that ESP
research is still done with Zener cards! Now, THAT, is a serious lapse in
scholarship. By the way, I note that the most recent reference cited in this
section (Singer and Benassi) is from 1981!
I know, I know. Some of you will argue that, regardless of the methodology
used, the evidence is still problematic. As I have stated before, I also tend
to acknowledge that there are problems with some (much?) of the evidence. In
my personal case, I continue to interpret the available evidence as showing a
weak effect showing up at times in the overall ESP database. In any event, I
think that we can all agree that the authors of any textbook do their readers a
great disservice by presenting a misleading or a very outdated view of any area
of research whether it is controversial or not.
Finally, I do agree with Dave: The book does have pretty pictures. :-)
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
Miguel Roig, Ph.D. Voice: (718) 390-4513
Assoc. Prof. of Psychology Fax: (718) 442-3612
Dept. of Psychology [EMAIL PROTECTED]
St. John's University [EMAIL PROTECTED]
300 Howard Avenue http://area51.stjohns.edu/~roig����
Staten Island, NY 10301����������
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
